WGA/SAGAFTRA Strike Discussion Thread | SAG Ratifies Contract

[Porthos]

15 minutes ago, Porthos said:

But since I am a bigger man than that, I won't point out that these all of the folks claiming this was A(n All But) Done Deal last week pulled a Fox Calls Arizona Early* on us.

* At least I hope it's a "Arizona Called Early" and not  a "Florida Called Wrongly" situation!!!

 

 

I typed up the following last week (on 10/29 according to my timestamp I saved), but never actually posted it and instead saved it in my drafts.  But since we've moved on a bit, I think it's still useful as an overview of where my thoughts were at this time last week, and for that matter right now:

 

====

 

You know what this whole conversation [ED NOTE: about whether or not EC, Jeff Sneider, et all, were hearing that this was a "done deal"] reminds me about (and @Cmasterclay should instantly get the point I'm about to make here)?  The infamous Fox News "Biden Wins Arizona" call of 2020.

 

To this day, anytime someone says, "Well, no, Fox News was wrong to make the call when they did," a chorus of people will say "BUT THEY WERE RIGHT! BIDEN DID (eventually after a verrrrry long count) WIN ARIZONA, SO THE CALL WAS CORRECT1!1"

 

Well, no.  Not at all.  That's conflating results with process.

 

See a network (or anyone for that matter) call of an election is supposed to occur when one is about 99.5% sure that the result is correct.  Not 85%.  Not 90%.  Not even 99%.  I won't go into depth about the reasons for this (though a decent amount of them rhyme with "mlorida"), except to say it looks really bad when someone says something important is going to happen when it doesn't.

 

The thing when it comes to elections, there isn't just one every three or four years.  In the US there's literally thousands of them a year.  And while any one network isn't gonna cover them all (obviously), the more times you spin that roulette wheel, the greater the chances of that 1% chance happening. That's the real underlying reason why networks and more reputable independent observers wait as long as they do even though it might be "clear" that absent a one in a hundred times out of nowhere black swan event something is absolutely going to happen before making an announcement.

IMPORTANT SIDE-NOTE: IIRC, turns out Fox News' Decision Desk had a woefully faulty model about the projected election day voters which massively underpredicted day-of-voting Republican turnout.  And it was something that was easily foreseeable.  If they hadn't had such a whacked out ED projection, they never would have made that call in the first place (they were expecting a Biden win of AZ of about 5 to 7 points, not the eventual .3 points)

 

To swing this back to the WGA and SAG talks, it might very well be that there is a 95% chance that an agreement will be reached within the next 24 to 72 hours [ED NOTE:  Turns out, an agreement was not made within 24/72 hours of my initial draft on 10/29].  And with "only" a couple of these every few years, the odds aren't likely to catch up and blow up in predictors faces who were saying this was a done deal/all but done deal on Friday night.  And the odds not being likely is exactly what some of us mean when we said EC et all got "lucky" during the WGA resolution.  A better way to put it is: They didn't get unlucky.

 

I don't doubt at all that they heard a wide number of sources saying that tremendous progress was being made or indeed that the Studios thought this would all be over very soon.  But even if they heard the same from sources from the actors guild side of things it still wouldn't matter all that much unless the sources were coming from the actual SAG Negotiating Committee.

 

And even then until a deal is done, it can unexpectedly fall apart if/when someone doesn't give on something that you expected them to not care about.

 

So maybe there was a general framework in place.  Maybe "most" of the problems were being ironed out.  Maybe only "legal details" had to be covered.  But as anyone who has had to deal with Contract Law can tell you: The Devil Is In the Details.

 

NB:

 

One reason I am posting this now is that there is a decent chance I'll wake up tomorrow/Tue/Wed to news of a deal.  But I wanted to plant my flag on my Process > Results and how it looks like the commentary of SAG Deal (All But) Done this time last weekend was in fact... premature.

 

Again, hopefully premature as opposed to wrong.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Porthos

[grim22]

10 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

I typed up the following last week (on 10/29 according to my timestamp I saved), but never actually posted it and instead saved it in my drafts.  But since we've moved on a bit, I think it's still useful as an overview of where my thoughts were at this time last week, and for that matter right now:

 

====

 

You know what this whole conversation [ED NOTE: about whether or not EC, Jeff Sneider, et all, were hearing that this was a "done deal"] reminds me about (and @Cmasterclay should instantly get the point I'm about to make here)?  The infamous Fox News "Biden Wins Arizona" call of 2020.

 

To this day, anytime someone says, "Well, no, Fox News was wrong to make the call when they did," a chorus of people will say "BUT THEY WERE RIGHT! BIDEN DID (eventually after a verrrrry long count) WIN ARIZONA, SO THE CALL WAS CORRECT1!1"

 

Well, no.  Not at all.  That's conflating results with process.

 

See a network (or anyone for that matter) call of an election is supposed to occur when one is about 99.5% sure that the result is correct.  Not 85%.  Not 90%.  Not even 99%.  I won't go into depth about the reasons for this (though a decent amount of them rhyme with "mlorida"), except to say it looks really bad when someone says something important is going to happen when it doesn't.

 

The thing when it comes to elections, there isn't just one every three or four years.  In the US there's literally thousands of them a year.  And while any one network isn't gonna cover them all (obviously), the more times you spin that roulette wheel, the greater the chances of that 1% chance happening. That's the real underlying reason why networks and more reputable independent observers wait as long as they do even though it might be "clear" that absent a one in a hundred times out of nowhere black swan event something is absolutely going to happen before making an announcement.

IMPORTANT SIDE-NOTE: IIRC, turns out Fox News' Decision Desk had a woefully faulty model about the projected election day voters which massively underpredicted day-of-voting Republican turnout.  And it was something that was easily foreseeable.  If they hadn't had such a whacked out ED projection, they never would have made that call in the first place (they were expecting a Biden win of AZ of about 5 to 7 points, not the eventual .3 points)

 

To swing this back to the WGA and SAG talks, it might very well be that there is a 95% chance that an agreement will be reached within the next 24 to 72 hours [ED NOTE:  Turns out, an agreement was not made within 24/72 hours of my initial draft on 10/29].  And with "only" a couple of these every few years, the odds aren't likely to catch up and blow up in predictors faces who were saying this was a done deal/all but done deal on Friday night.  And the odds not being likely is exactly what some of us mean when we said EC et all got "lucky" during the WGA resolution.  A better way to put it is: They didn't get unlucky.

 

I don't doubt at all that they heard a wide number of sources saying that tremendous progress was being made or indeed that the Studios thought this would all be over very soon.  But even if they heard the same from sources from the actors guild side of things it still wouldn't matter all that much unless the sources were coming from the actual SAG Negotiating Committee.

 

And even then until a deal is done, it can unexpectedly fall apart if/when someone doesn't give on something that you expected them to not care about.

 

So maybe there was a general framework in place.  Maybe "most" of the problems were being ironed out.  Maybe only "legal details" had to be covered.  But as anyone who has had to deal with Contract Law can tell you: The Devil Is In the Details.

 

NB:

 

One reason I am posting this now is that there is a decent chance I'll wake up tomorrow/Tue/Wed to news of a deal.  But I wanted to plant my flag on my Process > Results and how it looks like the commentary of SAG Deal (All But) Done this time last weekend was in fact... premature.

 

Again, hopefully premature as opposed to wrong.

 

Fox making that call saved Democracy though, for now. Hopefully the AP does something similar in 2024 to further save democracy.

[Mojoguy]

The AMPTP really wants to be able to copy and paste actors faces with AI and use them forever in stuff without paying. I can see it being abused for gross stuff like sex scenes. Just imagine being an actress just starting out and seeing studios use your imagine like that without consent.

 

AMPTP really are monsters.

 

SAG must get all protections that they can get even of this means going to 2024.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Mojoguy

[grim22]

From Rick Ellis (veteran showbiz reporter)

 

I've heard from **the union side that while the compensation issue is flexible (and both sides seem to be closer on that one), AI is seen as an existential threat.** "If we get this wrong, we won't be able to come back next time and unwind it," one source told me tonight. "Everyone understands how important this is and there is a strong feeling that this is our red line."

 

Several things about Saturday's meeting have been confirmed by multiple sources on both sides. **It was shorter than expected and there wasn't much negotiation involved in the call.**

 

Studio side sources tell me that their offer was presented and details were discussed and then the union was left to "discuss an offer we consider to be ground-breaking and very close to what they (the union) had been proposing." However, I was also told by several sources that the CEOs were not in the meeting to negotiate further over proposals. "This is a fair deal and we believe SAG-AFTRA members should have the opportunity to vote on it," one studio executive messaged me earlier Saturday evening.

 

*But other studio sources also admit that dissension in the ranks of the studios over AI has helped constrain the most recent proposal delivered to the union. "Several of us have a firm line we won't cross," one source told me. "We don't want our hands to be tied in the future because fears of how we might somehow misuse the technology restrains us contractually. We aren't negotiating over perceived fears."**

 

And perhaps that is why the trade stories posted today included descriptions of the offer as including "full AI protections." **It's clear the studios are hoping to frame their offer as reasonable, in part hoping that union members more focused on the compensations components will be willing to accept the current AI proposals.**

 

Union sources I spoke with had a very different take on the meeting. **The proposal from AMPTP was characterized to me as "falling very short of our expectations, particularly given recent talks." The compensation issues were described as being "closer, but still not there." But the consistent criticism I heard from union sources was that the studio's AI proposal fell "incredibly short" of what SAG-AFTRA negotiators had expected.** And reportedly when union representatives asked in Saturday's meeting for clarification on several issues, the studio side quickly exited the call.

 

The situation as I write this Saturday night is incredibly fluid. Every studio source I've spoken with has insisted this proposal is their "final" offer. However, that opens up the unanswered question of what might happen if the union negotiators reject the latest terms. **One top executive I spoke with admitted that the reluctance of several of the more tech-oriented members to move further on AI limited AMPTP's options moving forward. "We don't want to split into separate camps over this, and that won't get this solved if it happens."*

 

*It's also not clear where things move forward on the SAG-AFTRA side. Like the AMPTP sources I have spoken with, the union sources stress the need to present a united front. But an offer that is essentially "take it or leave it," puts a lot of pressure on everyone. 

 

Studio sources tell me they are waiting for a formal response from the union. That response is likely to come soon after a Sunday morning SAG-AFTRA meeting, which reportedly has been called to craft a formal response to the proposal.

[Kon]

2 hours ago, Mojoguy said:

The AMPTP really wants to be able to copy and paste actors faces with AI and use them forever in stuff without paying. I can see it being abused for gross stuff like sex scenes. Just imagine being an actress just starting out and seeing studios use your imagine like that without consent.

 

AMPTP really are monsters.

 

SAG must get all protections that they can get even of this means going to 2024.

 

I really doubt the studios will dare to do that. They may want to, but fear of sexual harassment lawsuits will surely stop them.

 

The studios would ask for consent from actors before using their faces for a sexual scene, since it's a lot less risky to do that.

 

 

That kind of thing is more likely to happen by people creating deepfake porn. They would do likely do that when the AI tech has been developed enough (although they don't have any kind of consent from the real person), due to anonymity.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Kon

[Derpity]

 

Interesting report here talking about the SAG negotiating committee being split -- 5.5 hours of meetings yday and they're meeting internally again today.

 

Reading between the lines of this report, it sounds like SAG really, really wants to end this strike but aren't sure if they can do that with the latest offer.

 

Again, my opinion reading between the lines, I think SAG and AMPTP are still moderately far apart. And it'll be on SAG to decide if they want to accept a small loss (versus their expectations! obv it'll be a better deal than current) or keep fighting in the weeks and months ahead for a small win.

[Mojoguy]

5 minutes ago, Derpity said:

 

Interesting report here talking about the SAG negotiating committee being split -- 5.5 hours of meetings yday and they're meeting internally again today.

 

Reading between the lines of this report, it sounds like SAG really, really wants to end this strike but aren't sure if they can do that with the latest offer.

 

Again, my opinion reading between the lines, I think SAG and AMPTP are still moderately far apart. And it'll be on SAG to decide if they want to accept a small loss (versus their expectations! obv it'll be a better deal than current) or keep fighting in the weeks and months ahead for a small win.

Is the Nanny to blame for wanting too much? Maybe she just refuses to back off? 

 

At this point both sides will have to make some concessions, but both sides don't want to.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

I know he can't talk about Aquaman 2 if the strike is still going, but at what point is going on SNL seen as being a scab? It's basically marketing for his movie.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CzTxCpKOU10/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Edited November 6, 2023 by MysteryMovieMogul

[SpiderByte]

15 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I know he can't talk about Aquaman 2 if the strike is still going, but at what point is going on SNL seen as being a scab? It's basically marketing for his movie.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CzTxCpKOU10/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

It's not scabbing. Unless he actually mentions Aquaman 2, literally absolutely nothing prevents him or anyone else from being on SNL

Edited November 6, 2023 by SpiderByte

[MysteryMovieMogul]

6 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

It's not scabbing. Unless he actually mentions Aquaman 2, literally absolutely nothing prevents him or anyone else from being on SNL

Seems like a loophole SAG needs to fix. Especially if Warner Bros is able to buy trailer time during the commercials.

[emoviefan]

Voldie is of course being the studio mouthpiece laying everything on SAG hardliners and their will be a revolt if they win out and don't take the deal. 

[robertman2]

4 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

Voldie is of course being the studio mouthpiece laying everything on SAG hardliners and their will be a revolt if they win out and don't take the deal. 

It'd be more surprising if he wasn't

[SpiderByte]

18 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Seems like a loophole SAG needs to fix. Especially if Warner Bros is able to buy trailer time during the commercials.

It's not a loophole, they have SAGs explicit permission.

 

 

[Morieris]

22 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Seems like a loophole SAG needs to fix. Especially if Warner Bros is able to buy trailer time during the commercials.

 

It's not a loophole or scabbing, but I do think it's kind of ... the actors aren't promoting it, but a studio still being able to buy ad space to advertise during the time period their star will be putting on a silly skit leaves a sour taste to me.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Morieris

[MysteryMovieMogul]

3 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

It's not a loophole, they have SAGs explicit permission.

 

 

That's cast members. Timothy Chalamet and Jason Momoa aren't cast members. But Warner Brothers can buy ad space for their films during the show. So While neither actor can talk about Wonka or Aquaman 2, respectively, Warner Brothers can buy ad-space for the trailers, to air between sketches.

[filmlover]

Chalamet and Momoa's hosting gigs were likely set up months ago even before the strike (Dune was supposed to be out this past weekend but he still has Wonka out this Christmas).

 

At this point, any move that SAG-AFTRA makes that doesn't involve ending the strike is just an open invitation to more negative headlines and questions of where their priorities are. A lot of actors defied the controversial Halloween rules and went out as characters considered "struck work" anyway.

[Jonwo]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Chalamet and Momoa's hosting gigs were likely set up months ago even before the strike (Dune was supposed to be out this past weekend but he still has Wonka out this Christmas).

 

At this point, any move that SAG-AFTRA makes that doesn't involve ending the strike is just an open invitation to more negative headlines and questions of where their priorities are. A lot of actors defied the controversial Halloween rules and went out as characters considered "struck work" anyway.

TBH SAG had to keep pointing out when WGA were picketing the Network Code shows like DWTS that their members had to coming to work and they couldn't protect them if they didn't. 

[MovieMagic]

46 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

That's cast members. Timothy Chalamet and Jason Momoa aren't cast members. But Warner Brothers can buy ad space for their films during the show. So While neither actor can talk about Wonka or Aquaman 2, respectively, Warner Brothers can buy ad-space for the trailers, to air between sketches.

Read the whole article:

 

“SAG-AFTRA members appearing on Saturday Night Live either as hosts, guests, or cast members are working under the Network Code agreement, which is not a contract we are striking. They are not in violation of SAG-AFTRA strike rules, and we support them in fulfilling their contractual obligations.”

[MysteryMovieMogul]

23 minutes ago, MovieMagic said:

Read the whole article:

 

“SAG-AFTRA members appearing on Saturday Night Live either as hosts, guests, or cast members are working under the Network Code agreement, which is not a contract we are striking. They are not in violation of SAG-AFTRA strike rules, and we support them in fulfilling their contractual obligations.”

Welp, I genuinely think SAG needs to close that loophole because the fact they don't have anyone from the SAG approved Hunger Games movie, and instead have two actors from WB movies that cannot be mentioned (all while WB can purchase ad-space and do their own marketing), is embarrassing.

Edited November 6, 2023 by MysteryMovieMogul
spelled embarrassing wrong. How embarrassing.

[Mojoguy]

3 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Welp, I genuinely think SAG needs to close that loophole because the fact they don't have anyone from the SAG approved Hunger Games movie, and instead have two actors from WB movies that cannot be mentioned (all while WB can purchase ad-space and do their own marketing), is embarrassing.

It's more that they don't have actors big enough on Songbirds to do SNL.

 

But I think would have been great to see Peter Dinkage doing SNL.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Mojoguy